(originally posted 7/31/2011)
Follow your own path.
Have the courage of your convictions.
Haste makes waste.
Ford would prove each of these adages with its 1960 full-size cars, although not in a way the company would have liked.
“The roots of the 1960 Ford stretch back to that watershed year in American automobile history, 1957. That year, Ford outflanked its old rival with two Fords–the Custom series on the 116-inch wheelbase, and the swank Fairlane on a two-inch longer span. The 1957 Chevrolet so revered today looked stodgy by comparison, so for the first time since the 1930s, Ford beat Chevrolet in the sales race.
During this time, Ford was planning its 1959 and 1960 models. By now, Robert McNamara was in charge, and he couldn’t see the point of having Fords on two wheelbases. So for 1959, they would all ride on a 118-inch wheelbase. Ford bucked the trend towards soaring tail fins and even sleek rooflines, and the midyear Galaxie series was set to feature a boxy, square roofline lifted from the four-seat Thunderbird.
Then Ford obtained the tooling plans for Chevrolet’s 1959 models. Ford officials initially couldn’t believe that GM was planning to build a Chevrolet with such wild, radical styling. Meanwhile, Chrysler’s 1957 models were still selling as fast as the corporation could–or more accurately, couldn’t–build them.
When Ford management realized that GM was serious, the proposed 1959 Ford suddenly looked as stodgy as the 1957 Chevrolet did against those flashy, low-slung 1957 Fords and Plymouths. What to do? It was too late to junk the planned 1959 Ford.
While all of this was happening, several Ford stylists were working on an advanced styling study dubbed Quicksilver (above). When top Ford executives, including Robert McNamara saw it, they thought it could be used for the 1960 Ford, as it looked sleeker than the planned model, which was a facelift of the 1959 model. Henry Ford II enthusiastically agreed, and since his name was on the building, the planned 1960 Ford was junked.
The Quicksilver was adapted as quickly as possible for production. Unfortunately, this meant altering the dimensions of the styling prototype, as Ford still needed to use the 1959 frame. The Quicksilver had to be raised two inches, altering its proportions. The final car was very wide–so wide, in fact, that it was over the legal limit for a vehicle to be classified as a passenger car in some states. Those states agreed to look the other way for one year.
An unforeseen problem was that the 1959 Ford turned out to be far more successful than even its creators had anticipated. Ford closed much of the gap that Chevrolet had opened up in 1958, and if the Galaxie series had been available at the beginning of the model year, Ford may very well made it a dead heat. Chrysler Corporation sales, meanwhile, plummeted for 1958, and only inched up for 1959, as buyers rejected the finned styling and were still nervous about Chrysler’s build quality. GM’s wild 1959 models met with a mixed reaction, and the corporation was already preparing to backpedal with its 1960 models.
Unfortunately, the wheels had already been set in motion, and the 1960 Ford appeared, looking very much like a warmed-over 1959 Chevrolet.
The roofline of the Starliner series appears to be directly cribbed from the 1959 Chevrolet, which, in turn, stole it from the 1957 Plymouth. Even the deluxe wheel covers of the Starliner looked like copies of those featured on the 1957 and 1959 Plymouths. In the back, the traditional Ford pie-plate taillights were gone, replaced with odd-looking half-moon units.
This Starliner hardtop coupe, along with the Sunliner convertible, took best to the new styling.
The sedans look like taxicabs…
…while the four-door Galaxie hardtop mated the square, Thunderbird-inspired roofline with the swoopy lower body. Ford had called the 1959 Galaxie “married in style to the Thunderbird.” For 1960, the Thunderbird roofline should have asked for a divorce.
While Ford suffered a big decline in full-size cars sales for 1960, the upshot was that buyers didn’t have an aversion to Ford products–the Falcon outsold the Corvair and Valiant combined, and the Thunderbird scored a nice increase in the final and third year of its styling cycle.
The standard excuse is that the Falcon stole sales from its big brother, while the Corvair was so radically different from the standard Chevrolet that it appealed to a completely different buyer. Only problem with that theory is that standard Chevrolet sales remained strong when Chevrolet rolled out its own Falcon in 1962 (the Chevy II).
The rushed development didn’t help assembly, even though Ford ambitiously promoted these as the Finest Fords of a Lifetime. A Popular Mechanics Owners Report on the car noted that only 50.8 percent rated it as excellent, the lowest excellent rating ever recorded for a car at that time. Over 15 percent listed their chief complaint as poor workmanship. Ironically, 87 percent of owners of the all-new Falcon rated it as excellent, the highest recorded by the magazine for any American car!
The Finest Fords of a Lifetime still didn’t completely enclose the shift linkage in the steering column, even though Chevrolet, Plymouth and Rambler did. Ford prospects would have to wait until 1963 for that to happen.
What was under that wide, flat hood? The engines were carryovers from 1959: a 223 six, and the 292 and 352 V-8s. They were reliable, solid engines, but no one was going to borrow Dad’s Galaxie to take on Impalas or even Furys in the stoplight grand prix.
For 1961, Ford revised the lower body, giving the front a more traditional Ford look, and returning the pie-plate taillights to the rear. This 1961 Starliner shows the effect, which I find to be much more attractive. Ford continued to improve workmanship and build quality, while cleaning up styling, but still lost ground to Chevrolet until the Mustang and the “quiet as a Rolls-Royce” LTD helped the division find its groove.
Reacting to Chevrolet hadn’t gone well for Ford in 1960. Henry Ford II, however, remained obsessed with GM. He had poached talent from GM to lead Ford’s rebirth, most notably Ernie Breech of GM and Bendix Aviation Corporation and Harold Youngren of Oldsmobile. His GM obsession would reach a peak in the late 1960s, when he hired Bunkie Knudsen away from GM. One wonders if he ever appreciated that Ford’s greatest successes after the mid-1950s were largely the work of two men (Robert McNamara and Lee Iacocca) who had never worked for the General, and were the result of Ford blazing a new path instead of following its rival’s tire tracks. The 1960 Ford, unfortunately, didn’t blaze its own trail, and paid the price.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1960 Ford Fairlane – Upstaged By The Rest Of The Cast by J. Shafer
1959 Ford Galaxie Sedan–Rarer Than An Edsel? by S. Pellegrino
I liked ’60 Ford Sunliners when they came out and knew two people who owned them as used cars. One of those guys put a warmed up 390 under the hood of his. I was, however, unaware of quality control issues. From a styling standpoint, the grille was obviously too conservative for the body and I always thought Ford should have had round taillights with the bumper sculpted to go under them, or repeated the taillights they did have, but turned upside down in the existing indentations in the stock 1960 bumper.
As a kid, I recall seeing a couple of these with what must have been accessory red reflectors which attached in the bumper indentations under the taillights. Really changed the look of the back.
I liked the 1960 because it looked sleek and modern. Seemed to have a flair that spoke of a new decade. My dad bought one new. And we were thrilled to have it.
I like the ’60 Ford. It’s sleek look seemed to announce the beginning of a new decade. I t does’nt look like a Chevrolet but like a new Ford. Ford’s don’t have to have round tail lights. They can look good with a new sleek design.
To me the ’60 Ford is iconic – like nothing before or since – EXCEPT for the 1961-63 Thunderbirds, which I find somehow informed by the same design idea.
Well, I was pubescent at the time (I know – you DIDN’T ask), and lots of things made impressions on me that endure to this day.
I have a ’66 Chevrolet Corvair, and while it has LOTS to offer that NOTHING else has (and is beautiful, to boot), what I like best about it is its (small) size. Even my admired Fords (above) don’t have that.
Always liked the 1960 Starliner HT Along with the 1958 Chev. Bel Air HT
Two of my favorites. Both were only one year body styles. The 1960 Starliner is a super rare car to see anywhere, I have only seen a few at the many many car shows that I have attended over the last 35 years.
One of the finest SLs I have ever seen was beautifully customized and was born and lived in Joliet,IL.
The name on it was BREATHLESS. It was !!
McNamara then went to Washington and kept America in VietNam 10 years too long.
I’ve read all of the posts following the original article about the 1960 Starliner, but I didn’t see any that listed the version of it that I owned back in 1964. I worked with the guy I bought it from, and he had just taken delivery of the first HPO ’64 Mustang Convertible in town ( Albuquerque). He admitted that the ’60 was far faster and had much longer legs, but the Mustang was quicker for about the first two-thirds of a quarter mile drag.
The Starliner was factory-delivered with a 360 HP 352 V8, and had a three-speed OVERDRIVE transmission and a 3.50 rear end. It would run 90 MPH at 2400 RPM; Ford ran one like it on their proving grounds clocked at 165 MPH. I’ve never had a car since that was more comfortable at high speed. It was bright red, and there was a second one like it in town, light blue, that ran the factory-offered 3-2bbl carbs set up, supposed to deliver 375 HP.
Ford put out a similar car for 1961, but not for 1962. For 1963, they delivered a Galaxie 500-“T” version, with a 425 HP 427 V8, a 4-spd, and 3.70 gears. There was a white one, owned by another guy I worked with at the time, and it was the first car that would outrun my 1960 for a mile. Ford built strong stuff in the ’60’s and there’s still a few of them around at shows.
By the way, mine is long gone…the idiot I sold it to piled it into the back of a parked Pontiac station wagon. My best friend bought the salvage, and we put the motor, trans, and rear end in a 1932 Ford and he ran it in B-Gas for two more years!
How can you not love those folded over horizontal fins and half moon taillights? This car is very pleasing to my eyes. And the ’60’s engines weren’t identical to the ’59, as the ’60 offered a 360 HP 352 4V which was by all accounts, a screamer.
It’s nice to see the Starliner pictured with the ‘Historic’ plate on the back. I like that interior.
I wonder if those front seat belts were factory-issued from Ford or aftermarket additions? They look right and proper; like the car originally came that way, but I just don’t know.
One advantage Ford had over Chevrolet in this era was the Cruise-o-matic transmission. For a tad over $20 more than Fordomatic you had a reliable three speed transmission, while most Chevrolet’s had the Powerglide with its two-speeds. Turboglide didn’t catch on due to early reliability problems. Torqueflite with the 318 V-8 was the best engine/ transmission combination of the day as the base level 318 had more power than the 292 Ford or 283 Chevy, and the Torqueflite was a great transmission. Plymouth styling in the early 1960’s, however was not good. My parent’s had a 1959 Chevrolet with the 283/ powerglide combination, which was okay. But, by 1964 he was ready to move on, and tried a Chrysler Newport. The torsion-bar suspension, and smooth shifting Torqueflite were a real eye opener to him. It didn’t cost much more than an Impala, and it served dependably for over 10 years.
the ’60 Galaxie was the first car I drove. It was a four door, with 352 V8. It did have rather poor build quality. I remember you always had to slam the doors as hard as possible, and then often have to try again to get them to stay closed.
The car was crazy wide. I think about 6 feet across on the bench seat. Also low to the ground. The seats were low to the floorboards, and your legs stretched in front of you. Almost like in an MG. We lived in CT, so the salt rotted the car out in a few years. My dad drove it to work one day, and as he pulled into his parking space, the gas tank fell to the ground. It was attached to the floor of the trunk, which had rusted away. My dad had some rope, so he tied it to the chassis, and drove it home. We later removed what was left of the trunk floor, and used some angle iron to suspend the gas tank from the frame. I would love to have one of these cars today. Preferably one without any rust.
Well I fanally found a ’60 Galaxie Town Sedan (4 door) locally in 2018. It is amazing because it spent its whoe life in Connecticut and was not a rust bucket. The color is “Adriatic Green” Here’s a picture:
I like these Fords all except sedans. Even the Country Squire looked sleek. I read somewhere that much like the ’71 Riviera, no one stakes claim for the ’60 big Ford’s styling. That’s a shame because time has proven them to be quite beautiful in hindsight.
I found the ‘60 Ford’s ugly stepsister.
One aspect of the transition from the Quicksilver to the 60 Ford as built is the roofline. The stylists combined a fairly upright C pillar with a big wrapped back window. It comes off pretty well in the prototype but was just awful in the production cars.
The production cars looked horribly unbalanced with that roof on sub-Galaxie models, too upright at the back and too elongated behind the front doors (that somehow looked not long enough in overall proportion to the car). Even the Galaxie roofline was compromised by too thin of a C pillar, so you really need to get a wagon, a convertible or a Starliner to have an attractive car.
As built – much was lost in the translation.
The 4 door was no better, making the front end look too short and the back end look too long.
Early in 1962, my father traded in our ’54 Ford Mainline six Tudor which had been brush painted seafoam green for a small town police department ex-patrol car ’60 Fairlane sedan, black, white top, cheap gray nylon interior. It was a six, stick with overdrive which he liked for its good gas mileage. While the styling was a major leap over the ’54, and its width was impressive, it sounded and felt like the ’54. Us three kids appreciated the uncrowded three abreast seats. It became more appealing when he had the black repainted dark emerald green. He kept it for four years, replacing it with a ’63 Galaxie 500 four door hardtop, also black and white but far more upscale. I was delighted we finally had a four door hardtop, had envied those who did when we still were in our dowdy sedan.
Clearly I am in the minority here. I always thought these 1960 Fords ,particularly the 2 Dr. Hardtops were a bold , handsome vehicles.
As a kid I liked these Fords well enough to send in the coupon from the Buyer’s Guide for the Galaxie promotional model – still in my collection. Today I don’t care for them at all. I recall that back in the day in our area of northern Indiana the 1960 full-sized Fords did not sell well, unlike the 1959 and 1961 models that were thick on the ground. Some 1960 big Ford sales clearly were lost to the very popular, and conventionally styled and engineered Falcon that came out that year.
Boy, This one lit up the lines………Beautiful car no matter what. Ahead of its time.
I can imagine how this probably happened—somebody quietly and handsomely paid somebody at a tooling shop—but I’d surely like to learn the details. Anyone?
What do we reckon was the ranking of these reasons? I wasn’t there, but my impression is that the halfaѕѕеd build quality of the ’57s just about singlehandedly tanked ChryCo’s passenger car sales for ’58 and ’59. Were people really rejecting the finned styling, d’you think? Seems to me there were some pretty popular and highly-regarded non-Mopar finned cars in the ’59-’60-’61 timeframe (Cadillac in all three of those years, ’59-’60 Chevrolets…).
As to the ’60 Fords…I can’t get onside with the design. I don’t care for the boxed look up front, which somehow makes the face look awkwardly pinched-up and narrow. And I really don’t like the frowny taillights.
The article mentions the cars being over width limits in some states. A commenter from 2014 says they were 81.5 inches wide. Yoiks! Yeah, we still have an 80-inch demarcation in the regs (which are Federal, now). Vehicles over 80 inches wide have to have clearance and identification lights front and rear, larger brake and turn signal lights, and a variety of other safety equipment not required on vehicles less than 80″ wide.
Daniel Stern, regarding your first question – I believe that Ford had a “mole” at a GM supplier. This sort of industrial espionage was quite common in Detroit at that time. John Z. DeLorean wrote about this practice in this book, which was published in 1979.
As for your second question – the “extreme fin” styling had a relatively short shelf life.
GM’s 1959 cars – except for the Cadillac and Pontiac – didn’t really sell as well as GM management had hoped. The 1958 Chevrolet had opened up a considerable lead over that year’s Ford, but the boxy Ford closed a fair amount of the gap in 1959, even though the Chevrolet boasted all-new styling.
Bill Mitchell said that the stylists almost immediately realized that they had gone too far with the 1959s, which is why the fins were considerably toned down for 1960, and basically gone by 1961, except over at the Cadillac. At Cadillac, the fins were still an important part of the brand’s identity.
By 1959, the Chrysler Corporation cars looked somewhat tired to new-car buyers, who recognized the basic 1957 body under the facelifted 1959 skin.
The 1959 Mopars were good-looking cars in the context of their time, although I prefer the more “pure” 1957-58 models.
Thanks, Geeber. I’m guessing the DeLorean book you refer to is “On a Clear Day…”. I don’t recall discussion of espionage, but it’s been at least 15 years since I read it. Maybe time again!
It’s on the back-burner but I’m writing the ’60 up sometime soon. My readings tell me Ford got the dimensions and visual cues of the 59 Chev from someone who built the tooling, and then Ford built their own interpretation of those inputs for themselves.
So somewhere within Fomoco styling was a mock-up of what they thought the 59 Chev was going to look like. IIRC this is covered in the most esteemingly excellent book ‘Ford Design Department 1932-1961’;
http://www.jandcfarrell.com
These were nice looking cars, but even with an attractive interior like the 4 door hardtop sedan, that steering column with the exposed shifter linkage just screams ‘CHEAP’. What took Ford so long to cover it up in one piece?
Call me weird, but I always liked the 60 Ford. One of my uncles had one, a Galaxie 4 door sedan. It’s interior didn’t seem cheap, and was quite nice, and had the red reflectors on the bumper. But then again, I always liked the Edsel. All three years.
Mercurys had a concentric shifter like everyone else. Ford just had to decide to spend a couple bucks for the nicer version they were already making, which they finally did for 1963.
Didn’t take a lot of searching to find a car with the reflectors in the bumper.
https://cdn.barrett-jackson.com/staging/carlist/items/Fullsize/Cars/91126/91126_Rear_3-4_Web.jpg
I found this photo on flickr. I haven’t seen one of these Country Sedan wagons on the road in 40+ years. I never realized how “AMC Pacer” the ’60 Ford wagons look in the rear.
Without the modern cars in the background (and the vanity plate), it seems this picture could have been taken in the early ’60s. “Picking up kids from church school.”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/76619182@N07/27216985322/in/photolist-Ht5avC-RppEJi-eN83qi-fuvj2p-VSMaXm-9fyAuf-2aLgi5m-az3gxi-9koEC9-oUdRMj-8cpJmW-2aAjA7f-ikTtmr-8cmo6F-EXH8QQ-7g4cxM-4BrNC-f4Qmxq-g38oJf-qryELe-own6sJ-24mTF-9rggmd-g9avoQ-8cmnTF-27ZbKFW-8v8jQR-8H9y91-86kZA1-Vu88Nj-77x97b-bCVTDb-2d3Kh9g-5SHYPM-5DkGPC-8GYvrk-8d7KdC-8cmCRa-XmYPCB-8cpHHE-EPxchd-biZGBX-fMvGVy-Ro7PfA-ikTwou-7usenD-5Nrkak-26yWYFW-fMkiZn-Tx64Rt
You reminded me that I found one as a CC here in Santa Monica a while back:
That thing looks like it’s been through hell. But at least it survives and is running, unlike 99.9% of them.
Below, another unlikely survivor. Was this taken recently or decades ago?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carphotosbyrichard/8290467673/in/album-72157623301273782/
Tthats what the wagon should look like, we had one as a tow car in a wrecking I worked in Saturdays while at school but it had no tailgate after a major shunt and all the rear end was rearranged, it still ran ok and with mudgrip tyres on the back would tow other cars around the yard ok, it replaced a 48 Chrysler sedan that finally expired.
Wow, I had either never noticed or completely forgotten the one-year-only rear setup on the 60 Ford wagons. There has to be a great story behind tha massive retooling of the rear roof and tailgate area for 1961 that brought the familiar curved rear side glass and tailgate with the retracting back window.
And had there been a 1960 Skyliner – if at all possible.
Too bad there was not a face lift of the 1959 for 1960, so that we would have had one more year of the Skyliner, although I really like the clean smooth integrated and modern look of the 1960 Fords.
I prefer the two or three round taillights (depending on the model) of the Canadian Meteor version. And a nicer grille as well.
Interestingly, Ford of Australia kept the 1959 body in productions until 1961.
Oh, hey, yeah, that Canadian taillight setup is much nicer than the frowny US lights.
Is It For SALE?
I have always loved the Quicksiler concept. So much so, I have restored a 60 Ford Starliner…..but have customized it using FoMoCo oem parts. I feel that the Meteor grille match with the Edsel bumpers, gives the car has a more substantial appearance. The 60 production Ford has more “gingerbread” chrome features, which seem to just be add-ons with no real purpose. My customized Ford has been dechromed, leaving only the beltline chrome, like the Quicksilver. Here it is.
I don’t believe anyone here mentioned the rare 352 Hipo? 360 HP, was the beginning of high HP. Was barely advertised, but definitely available. It worked it’s way up to the 406 and 427 engines, running basically the same parts . .sorta 🙂
I like this model and the 61 Chevy Biscayne. If I had a 3 car garage, those would be in 2 of them, The styling is subtle, not to heavy on the 50s fins but not the slab sided cars that were coming. . 911 would be in the other,